The site name was chosen in an era when MMORPG's where very much the "only (online) game in town". The genre has expanded and blurred and evolved. Now the "Model-T Ford Monthly Review" has to somehow justify covering Ferrari's, Fiat's and SUV's as well.
I think the problem is that some people see problem...
First of all, no one ever decided on definition, so some guys here should stop making things up about what makes a game massive multiplayer. You are free to argue between yourselves, about what you think, but stop referring to some non-existent definitions.
I find it easy to seperate games that I find suitable for me in here, from the types I do not like. If other people need to add labels, well.. that is their problem.
Even if there was a consensus in this topic, people that own mmorpg.com are free to label games however the hell they want to, not like some random guy wants them to.
The site name was chosen in an era when MMORPG's where very much the "only (online) game in town". The genre has expanded and blurred and evolved. Now the "Model-T Ford Monthly Review" has to somehow justify covering Ferrari's, Fiat's and SUV's as well.
I can understand a persitent world being important in a MMORPG.
How do you understand the expression "persistent world"?
Technically the meaning is reduced to persisting game mechanics (e.g. health, stats, equipment, etc. of a game character). You log in -> your character will be in the same or a similar state as when you logged off. No more no less.
The game doesn't know your story. The game doesn't care about your story. Other players may recognize you and know part of your story. But only as long as they continue playing the same game. You cannot leave a "history of your deeds" in-game (made up or true). NPCs don't care whether you helped them or not. NPCs will respawn. A camp of bandits will respawn, although you helped eradicate them.
If this feature were really that important (in a broader sense and not restricted to a technical point of view) the game list on this site would be rather short.
Originally posted by immodium Didn't think an MMO had to have a persistent world.
it wouldnt be multiplayer, let alone massively multiplayer if you couldnt play with all of them. Having servers to hold many people doesnt make it massively multiplayer, that just make it online. IMO. Thats how i see it.
The only MMO I can play with ALL people playing the game is EvE (maybe TSW?) as most are separated by servers.
That's beside the point. What counts is if you are multiplayer-ing with a massive number.
They can be highly instanced or be arena based. Also be on timers or reset. Doesn't technically have to be persistent.
Whats this massive number anyway?
they can be highly instanced and still allow X amount of player to be in that instance at the same time (like Swtor did) where each map is a small "persistent" instance. That is a million times better than seeing everyone in town and then be alone as soon as i walk out of town. The coop aspect will always be there, but it each map is not persistent then i dont consider it an mmo personally. Seamless doesnt mean persistent. A game world separated by smaller areas can be seamless or instanced, and still have each area persistent or personal.
Originally posted by immodium Didn't think an MMO had to have a persistent world.
If it doesn't have a persistent world it can't really be called "mmorpg"
It might be an mmo, it might be an rpg, but not mmorpg.
The whole point of mmorpg is that you are sharing your rpg with with most of players playing the same game. If it is not persistent than that means they are not necessarily viewing the same "world" as you at any given time, or that the historical data of the world is irrelevant, which means they are not in your rpg world (or which means you are all not in an rpg because rpg relies on historical data), which means it is not an "mmorpg"
The site name was chosen in an era when MMORPG's where very much the "only (online) game in town". The genre has expanded and blurred and evolved. Now the "Model-T Ford Monthly Review" has to somehow justify covering Ferrari's, Fiat's and SUV's as well.
I think the problem is that some people see problem...
First of all, no one ever decided on definition, so some guys here should stop making things up about what makes a game massive multiplayer. You are free to argue between yourselves, about what you think, but stop referring to some non-existent definitions.
I find it easy to seperate games that I find suitable for me in here, from the types I do not like. If other people need to add labels, well.. that is their problem.
Even if there was a consensus in this topic, people that own mmorpg.com are free to label games however the hell they want to, not like some random guy wants them to.
MMOG (massive multiplayer online game) is simply a description. It doesn't classify the kind of game. It's simply a technical feature.
It gets ambigous with the label MMORPG since RPG can mean so many different things to people (anything from hack&Slash to roleplaying).
Originally posted by immodium Originally posted by SpottyGekkoMMORPG.COM has a problem.The site name was chosen in an era when MMORPG's where very much the "only (online) game in town". The genre has expanded and blurred and evolved. Now the "Model-T Ford Monthly Review" has to somehow justify covering Ferrari's, Fiat's and SUV's as well.
I can understand a persistent world being important in a MMORPG.
Even then it makes me wonder how important that really is: when I first started MMORPGs back in 1999 with Everquest (before I knew any better, basically) the offer of a persistent world was exciting because it game me a reason to keep logging in as often as possible- I thought it meant that things within the world would change without notice. Sometimes they did either via GM events or by player achievements such as the sleeper awakening.
Most of the time (and in most MMORPGs I've played since) it does not mean that at all, rather the same scripts keep running the same actions ad infinitum so that the persistent world is absolutely no different than it was the last time I logged out. Since WoW popularized canned "events" rather than true GM events it seems even less enticing. The net effect to me is that having a persistent world is no different than having a world that begins and ends with each session of play when nothing really changes.
An MMO has to have a persistent virtual world. Games that don't aren't MMOs. "Massively multiplayer" means "many players playing at the same time in the same game world working together or competing". If you call LoL an MMO, what's to stop CoDs's multiplayer from being an MMO?
Simple fact is probably that those games are in the list to bring more traffic to the site, not because the editors actually think they are MMOs.
I don't understand why you do these threads Nari. You say the definitions of what a game is do not bother you and yet you keep trying to change what MMO means.
None of the above are MMOs to my knowledge, that said I did not recognise them all.
I don't understand why you do these threads Nari. You say the definitions of what a game is do not bother you and yet you keep trying to change what MMO means.
None of the above are MMOs to my knowledge, that said I did not recognise them all.
To have fun?
I did not change anything. I merely point out how MMOs are classified on this site, and let the discussions begin. Sure, you have your opinion about what a MMO is ... i already know that.
Is the list of the MMO list on this site creating cognitive dissonance for you?
An MMO has to have a persistent virtual world. Games that don't aren't MMOs. "Massively multiplayer" means "many players playing at the same time in the same game world working together or competing". If you call LoL an MMO, what's to stop CoDs's multiplayer from being an MMO?
Don't fall for the bait folks, this thread really isn't about which titles lack a persistent game world, it's just another twist on one of the favorite subjects of the OP, what is the definition of a MMO and who gets to decide when one is or is not.
Ok..... That sounds like a great subject to discuss
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
People here lament the decline of communities in MMOs but people here are also very exclusionary.
But I guess you can form a community based upon excluding any and all that disagree with you.
"Thats not an MMO, it doesnt have a persistent world"
"WoW isnt an MMO either because even though it does a persistent world its endgame is instanced dungeon based"
Too many old man yelling at the kids to get off his lawn types.
Good point..... Now get off my lawn!!!
heheheh ... those who don't like certain discussions here can always go found their own forum, and rule with an iron fist.
However, if they want to play in an open forum like that, i do not see they have any way to force everyone who does not agree to leave. The only way to avoid hearing opposite opinions is to leave.
Originally posted by immodium Didn't think an MMO had to have a persistent world.
it wouldnt be multiplayer, let alone massively multiplayer if you couldnt play with all of them. Having servers to hold many people doesnt make it massively multiplayer, that just make it online. IMO. Thats how i see it.
The only MMO I can play with ALL people playing the game is EvE (maybe TSW?) as most are separated by servers.
Vendetta Online has a single, non-instanced galaxy that is device-agnostic... capable (in theory) of supporting up to thousands of players online simultaneously. So, you could play with all the people playing in that game, too.
OP: euhm, Minecraft? War Thunder? Those are the two I've played that come to mind out of the games listed.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Comments
I think the problem is that some people see problem...
First of all, no one ever decided on definition, so some guys here should stop making things up about what makes a game massive multiplayer. You are free to argue between yourselves, about what you think, but stop referring to some non-existent definitions.
I find it easy to seperate games that I find suitable for me in here, from the types I do not like. If other people need to add labels, well.. that is their problem.
Even if there was a consensus in this topic, people that own mmorpg.com are free to label games however the hell they want to, not like some random guy wants them to.
People here lament the decline of communities in MMOs but people here are also very exclusionary.
But I guess you can form a community based upon excluding any and all that disagree with you.
"Thats not an MMO, it doesnt have a persistent world"
"WoW isnt an MMO either because even though it does a persistent world its endgame is instanced dungeon based"
Too many old man yelling at the kids to get off his lawn types.
How do you understand the expression "persistent world"?
Technically the meaning is reduced to persisting game mechanics (e.g. health, stats, equipment, etc. of a game character). You log in -> your character will be in the same or a similar state as when you logged off. No more no less.
The game doesn't know your story. The game doesn't care about your story. Other players may recognize you and know part of your story. But only as long as they continue playing the same game. You cannot leave a "history of your deeds" in-game (made up or true). NPCs don't care whether you helped them or not. NPCs will respawn. A camp of bandits will respawn, although you helped eradicate them.
If this feature were really that important (in a broader sense and not restricted to a technical point of view) the game list on this site would be rather short.
they can be highly instanced and still allow X amount of player to be in that instance at the same time (like Swtor did) where each map is a small "persistent" instance. That is a million times better than seeing everyone in town and then be alone as soon as i walk out of town. The coop aspect will always be there, but it each map is not persistent then i dont consider it an mmo personally. Seamless doesnt mean persistent. A game world separated by smaller areas can be seamless or instanced, and still have each area persistent or personal.
If it doesn't have a persistent world it can't really be called "mmorpg"
It might be an mmo, it might be an rpg, but not mmorpg.
The whole point of mmorpg is that you are sharing your rpg with with most of players playing the same game. If it is not persistent than that means they are not necessarily viewing the same "world" as you at any given time, or that the historical data of the world is irrelevant, which means they are not in your rpg world (or which means you are all not in an rpg because rpg relies on historical data), which means it is not an "mmorpg"
MMOG (massive multiplayer online game) is simply a description. It doesn't classify the kind of game. It's simply a technical feature.
It gets ambigous with the label MMORPG since RPG can mean so many different things to people (anything from hack&Slash to roleplaying).
Even then it makes me wonder how important that really is: when I first started MMORPGs back in 1999 with Everquest (before I knew any better, basically) the offer of a persistent world was exciting because it game me a reason to keep logging in as often as possible- I thought it meant that things within the world would change without notice. Sometimes they did either via GM events or by player achievements such as the sleeper awakening.
Most of the time (and in most MMORPGs I've played since) it does not mean that at all, rather the same scripts keep running the same actions ad infinitum so that the persistent world is absolutely no different than it was the last time I logged out. Since WoW popularized canned "events" rather than true GM events it seems even less enticing. The net effect to me is that having a persistent world is no different than having a world that begins and ends with each session of play when nothing really changes.
E.g. planetside is a mmo but not a mmorpg, because it isn't a rpg, but it does take place in a massively multiplayer persistent world.
Where as battlefield isn't a mmo, because its a lobby into instanced matches.
Anyway no more posts, as others have pointed out its just a silly click bait thread.
You don't get it............
An MMO has to have a persistent virtual world. Games that don't aren't MMOs. "Massively multiplayer" means "many players playing at the same time in the same game world working together or competing". If you call LoL an MMO, what's to stop CoDs's multiplayer from being an MMO?
Simple fact is probably that those games are in the list to bring more traffic to the site, not because the editors actually think they are MMOs.
I don't understand why you do these threads Nari. You say the definitions of what a game is do not bother you and yet you keep trying to change what MMO means.
None of the above are MMOs to my knowledge, that said I did not recognise them all.
You really do not understand? I do. Kyleran too.
As I said in another thread, soon we will learn that Doom and Quake are MMORPGs too, just for the sake of making another of those threads.
My computer is better than yours.
To have fun?
I did not change anything. I merely point out how MMOs are classified on this site, and let the discussions begin. Sure, you have your opinion about what a MMO is ... i already know that.
Is the list of the MMO list on this site creating cognitive dissonance for you?
Common usage? Nothing more and nothing less.
Ok..... That sounds like a great subject to discuss
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
Good point..... Now get off my lawn!!!
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
heheheh ... those who don't like certain discussions here can always go found their own forum, and rule with an iron fist.
However, if they want to play in an open forum like that, i do not see they have any way to force everyone who does not agree to leave. The only way to avoid hearing opposite opinions is to leave.
Vendetta Online has a single, non-instanced galaxy that is device-agnostic... capable (in theory) of supporting up to thousands of players online simultaneously. So, you could play with all the people playing in that game, too.
OP: euhm, Minecraft? War Thunder? Those are the two I've played that come to mind out of the games listed.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
I am not familiar with War Thunder, but i didn't see Minecraft.
I wonder why warframe is not listed. It is closer, in playstyle, to many games on the list than minecraft.